Only in Little League

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Alters his throwing motion (by stepping out, leaning into, losing his balance, etc.), or gets in the way of a play on a runner at the plate. A thrown ball is only subject to interference if the interference is intentional. Otherwise, it is what they call in golf, a "rub of the green." Play the ball as it lies.

SDS,
A runner needs to have intent to be called out for interfering with a thrown ball. A batter can, by 6.06c, be penalized for interfering with a ball thrown by the catcher. Yes, I know 6.06c says "throwing", and you can try to argue that means only the throwing motion, but MLBUM 6.8 says "the catcher's throw". J/R Ch. 13 makes clear that interference may be called if the actual throw hits the batter. Or you could look at the last paragraph of MLBUM 6.10, which also illustrates the point.

NFump's scenario above is batter's interference.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

NFump's scenario above is batter's interference.

What about in the OP?

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

What about in the OP?

Well,
I think others have made the same point, but the way I envision the OP, R1 is walking towards second, maybe a quarter of the way there, so F2 has an opportunity to get him out. The proper play is to throw to first base because a throw to second will give R1 time to return to first before the throw from second to first can get there. So we have F2 with a legitimate play at first base on R1, and a batter who is well out of the box, and in the line of fire. It's got to be interference.

If R1 were already more than halfway to second, then there is no reasonable play at first base. In that case there is nothing to intefere with. But that isn't how I read the OP.

[Dave Reed]

Bishopcolle,
The part of J/R I referenced applies solely to the actions of a batter, and not to a batter runner. The running lane is only relevant when there is a B/R. There is no batter-runner in the OP, only a confused batter.

My apologies (and sympathy) to the various posters who have already pointed this out in this thread.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Bishopcolle,
The part of J/R I referenced applies solely to the actions of a batter, and not to a batter runner. The running lane is only relevant when there is a B/R. There is no batter-runner in the OP, only a confused batter.

My apologies (and sympathy) to the various posters who have already pointed this out in this thread.

My apologies as well...."pitcher throws ball 3. batter thinks it is ball 4 and starts to run to first base," taken from the OP, seems to indicate that the batter BELIEVES he is a BR--he definitely isn't, but he acts like one, and he takes off (starts to run) for first base--per the OP. Therefore, the running lane is relevant to the OP, and hence, my comment that you would have interference if he is out of his running lane.....My apologies and sympathy to other posters.....

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

My apologies as well...."pitcher throws ball 3. batter thinks it is ball 4 and starts to run to first base," taken from the OP, seems to indicate that the batter BELIEVES he is a BR--he definitely isn't, but he acts like one, and he takes off (starts to run) for first base--per the OP. Therefore, the running lane is relevant to the OP, and hence, my comment that you would have interference if he is out of his running lane.....My apologies and sympathy to other posters.....

The batter's mistaken belief does not make him a runner. The batter's misinformed actions do not make him a runner.

Only the events of the game can make him a runner, and none of the events that make a batter a runner occurred in the OP. Ergo, he's just a batter, and guilty of interference.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The batter's mistaken belief does not make him a runner. The batter's misinformed actions do not make him a runner.

Only the events of the game can make him a runner, and none of the events that make a batter a runner occurred in the OP. Ergo, he's just a batter, and guilty of interference.

MBryon: I agree with you....I stated that he "definitely" is not a runner....My point being is that he RAN and was way out in front of F2 in the lane....He did not interfere with F2, at the plate, because he was running....improperly, yes. Therefore, F2's errant throw to his back was poor defense (unless the batter was in the field of play which isn't made clear by the OP.) That's why I wouldn't give an INT call here.....

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

SDS,
A runner needs to have intent to be called out for interfering with a thrown ball. A batter can, by 6.06c, be penalized for interfering with a ball thrown by the catcher. Yes, I know 6.06c says "throwing", and you can try to argue that means only the throwing motion, but MLBUM 6.8 says "the catcher's throw". J/R Ch. 13 makes clear that interference may be called if the actual throw hits the batter. Or you could look at the last paragraph of MLBUM 6.10, which also illustrates the point.

NFump's scenario above is batter's interference.

"J/R Ch. 13 makes clear that interference may be called if the actual throw hits the batter." If he's not running in his clear lane....If he's running inside the field, then he is out for interference on the throw...You can't drill the BR in the back when he is running outside and still get interference....